Madras High Court
The Nagercoil Municipal ... vs V.Manokaran ... 1St on 22 March, 2022
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE PARESH UPADHYAY
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.2102 to 2105 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4700 and 4701 of 2021
The Nagercoil Municipal Corporation,
166, Balamore Road,
Nagercoil - 629001,
Kanyakumari District,
Rep. by its
Municipal Commissioner. ... Appellant
in all Writ Appeals.
Vs.
1.V.Manokaran ... 1st Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.493 of 2021
2.T.Babu ... 1st Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.494 of 2021
3.D.Dhanasekar ... 1st Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.495 of 2021
4.Menaka Devi ... 1st Respondent in
W.A.(MD)No.496 of 2021
5.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
St.Fort George, Chennai - 600 009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
6.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
No.78, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
7.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District - 629 001.
... Respondents 2 to 4
in all Writ Appeals
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters
Patent against the orders dated 01.02.2021 passed in
W.P(MD)Nos.19630, 19634, 19868 and 19872 of 2020 by the learned
Single Judge.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Athimoolapandian
in all WAs.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr.N.Dilipkumar
in all WAs.
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr.K.Balasubramani,
in all WAs. Special Government Pleader.
COMMON JUDGMENT
[Delivered by PARESH UPADHYAY, J.]
Challenge in these appeals is made to the common order dated
01.02.2021 recorded on W.P. (MD)Nos.19630, 19634, 19868 and 19872
of 2020. These appeals are by the respondent Municipal Corporation. By
the impugned order, learned Single Judge has granted relief to the writ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
petitioners of not paying any licence fee to the Municipal Corporation (for
the shops they are occupying), for the lock-down period (March to
September, 2020).
2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the
relief granted by learned Single Judge of waiving the licence fee for the
entire lock-down period i.e., for the period from 24.03.2020 to
06.09.2020 is inconsistent with the policy of the State and no relief could
have been granted to the petitioners. It is submitted that, when the
shops in question were leased, the tender condition also stipulated that in
the event of default of payment of rent / license fee, no concession will be
granted under any of the circumstances including pandemic. Learned
advocate for the appellant - Municipal Corporation has further submitted
that, in view of the Government Order dated 02.09.2020 waiving the
lease / rent for only two months i.e., for April and May, 2020, it is not
open to the Corporation to give any further concession. It is submitted
that these appeals be entertained.
3. Learned Special Government Pleader for the State
Authorities submitted that the action of the Municipal Corporation, on the
basis of the Government Order cannot be said to illegal and therefore no
interference should have been made by the Writ Court. It is further
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
submitted that, since the proposal by the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration dated 18.06.2020 was for two months, consequential
Government Order was passed and beyond that no Government Order is
passed by the State and therefore the writ petitioners were not entitled to
any relief. It is further submitted that it is the policy of the State and
therefore in such policy decisions, discretion under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India should not be exercised.
4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the original writ
petitioners has submitted that the entire affair of the Country was
standstill in view of the total lock-down announced by the Government
and the petitioners could not have gone to attend their livelihood much
less to pay to the Government and therefore the discretion exercised by
learned Single Judge is just and proper and no interference be made by
this court. Attention of the Court is also invited to G.O.(D)No.298, dated
02.09.2020, which was stated to have been issued on the basis of the
recommendation of the Commissioner of Municipal Administration dated
18.06.2020. It is submitted that these appeals be dismissed.
5. The point at issue before this Court in these appeals is,
whether the relief granted by learned Single Judge to the writ petitioners
of waiver of license fee for the period of lock-down (from 24.03.2020 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
06.09.2020 – in this case upto 31.08.2020) can be said to be erroneous
in any manner, which may call for any interference in these intra-court
appeals.
6. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties
and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:-
6.1 The difficulties faced by the nation (during March to
September, 2020) was like once in century. The extraordinary
circumstances can not be met with by ordinary measures. The State in its
wisdom thought it proper not to permit any citizen even to walk on the
road during the said period. No one would go out to earn money, no one
would go out to spent money.
6.2 Considering this, Government passed order on
02.09.2020 accepting the proposal of the Commissioner of Municipal
Administration dated 18.06.2020, which was for waiver of the license fee
for the months of April and May 2020. We do not find any fault in the
proposal of the Commissioner which was made in the month of June,
2020 because that would not have taken into consideration the
eventualities of the months coming thereafter. If the said proposal was
based on the lock-down for the months of April and May, 2020, we do not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
see any change of circumstances for remaining period of the lock-down
upto September, 2020. Only because no proposal was made by the
Commissioner of Municipal Administration in that regard or the
Government not passing any consequential order can not be a guiding
factor to meet with such circumstances.
6.3 We find that, these are circumstances in which the
State on its own should have taken care of the citizen. Having failed to do
so, when this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has granted that relief, the same can not be said to
be erroneous in any manner. Not only we do not find any error therein,
we confirm the said view. For these reasons, these appeals need to be
dismissed.
7. For the above reasons, these appeals are dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed.
[P.U., J] [K.R., J]
22.03.2022
Index : No
smn/34
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
To
1.The Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
St. Fort George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Municipal Administration,
No.78, Urban Administrative Building,
Santhome High Road,
MRC Nagar, Raja Annamalaipuram,
Chennai - 600 028.
3.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil, Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District - 629 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
PARESH UPADHYAY, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
smn
W.A(MD)Nos.493 to 496 of 2021
22.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
